BEP016: Initial draft of common filename suffix "model" #46
Conversation
|
Any opinions on merging this prior to greater broadcast?
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
After merging #51, I think that you will need to adjust "parameter" to "param" wherever that appears. I think that it would be good to continue the discussion about the "all" designation, which I highlight in my comment here. Will open a separate discussion, referencing the relevant PRs (this one and #52).
| Dimensions of NIfTI image "`sub-01_desc-dti_parameter-all_model.nii.gz`": *I*x*J*x*K*x6 ([parameter vectors](#data-param)) | ||
| Dimensions of NIfTI image "`sub-01_desc-dti_parameter-bzero_model.nii.gz`": *I*x*J*x*K* ([scalar](#data-scalar)) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
On the one hand, the first file among these two has an "all" in its file name suggesting that all relevant parameters are found in this file. On the other hand, we immediately have another _model file right next to it. That's a bit confusing, isn't it? So either the b0 goes into the _all_model file, or we need to find another way to find all the relevant model parameters distributed across multiple files.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
But otherwise, I think this is good to go.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That's an error on my part. "_param-all" should only appear if it's the only image containing model parameters. If the tensor fitting also yields a b=0 estimate, it needs to be something like "_param-tensor" and "_param-bzero".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Indeed exactly this was already described in the prior table. Should be resolved in d3bbb86.
Conflicts: src/05-derivatives/05-diffusion-derivatives.md
|
We agree to merge this and now we can start with the next |
Draft PR in order to discuss issues described in greater detail in #32.